Topic: 加拿大油砂可能成为世界最大石油来源 @枫下论坛 The Rolia Forum

枫下茶话 / 政治经济 / 加拿大油砂可能成为世界最大石油来源 -deen(修罗王); 2006-1-12 {1657} (#2714413@0)

油砂的成本比普通石油高多了，$20的石油价格对油砂来说根本无利可图，$40以上才有商业开发价值。想象一下沙特的石油成本就几美元一桶，简直跟直接从地里刨金子差不多。而且油砂开采从环保上讲不合算，现在的技术要燃烧更清洁的天然气加热油砂，才能从中采到石油，绿党听到了要气得翻白眼了。 -smallwhale(喝不了咖啡); 2006-1-12 {54} (#2714430@0)

你说的没错，从油砂中提油，以现有的技术，是‘用金子提砂子’。替代能源的问题不像很多人想的是件遥远的事。 -dreamplace(小胖); 2006-1-12 (#2714443@0)

话说得很好，可是替代能源在哪里？核能源是干净安全效率高的能源，可是绿党坚决反对。。。 -llrm(小陳); 2006-1-12 (#2714475@0)

在核能这点上我并不同意绿党。我觉得核能是最好的grid base-load发电，但renewable可以提供peak以及on-site and distributed power generation.Renewable can be from wind, solar, hydro, tide, geothermal, whatever is abundant locally. -dreamplace(小胖); 2006-1-12 {89} (#2714498@0)

我本人是主张环保的,但是我不赞成绿党的主张. -colourwolf(色狼); 2006-1-12 (#2714653@0)

洗耳恭听 -dreamplace(小胖); 2006-1-12 (#2714886@0)

很简单，这里面有个协调发展的问题。绿党那些东西只会让经济垮下去。我尤其不赞同对酒加税，现在安大略的LCBO太黑了 -colourwolf(色狼); 2006-1-12 (#2715011@0)

绿党那些主张我觉得有点激进了我也是一个环保主义者。

我觉得至少现在应该严格限制大排量的车辆。还有就是house的取暖问题，新建的house很多还是有值得改进的地方。另外，政府可以对一些环保产业，产品给予适当的扶持政策。比如，美国对低排放的车辆给予退税，为什么加拿大政府在这方面又没有很大的动作？

还有太阳能风能等再生能源，为什么政府就没有很大的扶持力度？我曾经quote过一套家庭太阳能发电系统，大约4000W的能力，要价28000CAD。实在太贵，如果能有各种政策性的优惠，实际上是一个很好的产业。 -blackscraper(橡皮鱼); 2006-1-12 {448} (#2715086@0)

我认为家用太阳能前途不大，因为发电量小，你总不能不种草改发电吧。我认为用太阳能加热水和帮助取暖更有前途，这样热效率高很多 -colourwolf(色狼); 2006-1-12 (#2715606@0)

不知道太阳在加拿大的能量密度多少，现在民用太阳能电池已经有15%的转换效率了。即使算上inverter90%的效率，总体发电效率已经比火电站高了更重要的是，这样夏天可以大大减少制冷空调的运行。不失为一个很好的方法 -blackscraper(橡皮鱼); 2006-1-13 {68} (#2716256@0)
个人认为，可控核聚变电站（已经可以制造了），大规模太阳能电站（太空或者地面无人区）是比较现实的方案 -blackscraper(橡皮鱼); 2006-1-13 (#2716258@0)

Please google "power plant thermal efficiency" and "ITER" then WAKE UP! -hurontario(puchowala); 2006-1-13 (#2716366@0)

哈哈，我都懒得说这个10%的数字多么不准确。我认为应该在30-40%吧，先不google我还是认为用太阳能发电是不可行的，但是直接用太阳能帮助取暖或加热水是很可行而且效率很高 -colourwolf(色狼); 2006-1-13 {86} (#2716375@0)
wow, 我一直以为大型火电只有10%的效率呢。不过这个数据包不包括所有效率？就是那些输电等的效率？因为如果家庭发电，书店效率是很高的，并没有长距离输电造成的损耗 -blackscraper(橡皮鱼); 2006-1-13 {62} (#2716628@0)

输变电确实有损耗,具体多少我不知道,我想最多10%吧。现在都用超高压输电，损耗应该不大 -colourwolf(色狼); 2006-1-13 (#2716661@0)

如果在一个普通house的屋顶铺上solar panel，能有多少功率？我看Ebay上有个solar panel 102W，只有1平方米都不到 -blackscraper(橡皮鱼); 2006-1-13 {49} (#2716693@0)

Mr. Smart, please don't waste your energy to find a better energy solution for the world. The free market, not any person or government, will choose whatever is available in lowest price, in short run and long run. -hurontario(puchowala); 2006-1-13 (#2716773@0)

你这个想法没有什么远见。你的逻辑相当于现在世界粮食完全可以用钱买得到，等不够了再去开发新品种。要知道等不够了就晚了 -colourwolf(色狼); 2006-1-14 (#2718597@0)

Yeah you know a lot and you conclude a lot but HOW DO YOU KNOW YOUR 远见 ARE RIGHT? Marx belived he was right. MZD believed he was right. Hitler, Stalin, Jin... you name it! -hurontario(puchowala); 2006-1-14 (#2719859@0)
Marx believed it would be too late to destroy capitalism, MZD believed "一万年太久只争朝夕" -hurontario(puchowala); 2006-1-14 (#2719868@0)

给你个概念1) 这和太阳光的能量密度有关，纬度越高越不中用；
2) 阴天和晚上没有用，冬天被雪覆盖没有用;
3) 价格昂贵，而且容易被冰雹打风等摧毁；
4) 1平方米产生102W那可能是在中午，相信早晚肯定不灵,问题是普通家庭用电是在早晚;

所以我认为用太阳光作为对热水和房屋的辅助加热手段是更现实而且可行的，但是靠它发电还是省着点吧，仅限于Camping使用 -colourwolf(色狼); 2006-1-14 {325} (#2718596@0)

核能是减少排放温室气体的最现实的选择,但是目前核能的问题是如何永久性处理核废料的问题.这个问题看来很难解决 -colourwolf(色狼); 2006-1-12 (#2714650@0)

how about outspace? rocket is not expensive... -china-cat(chinacat); 2006-1-12 (#2714667@0)

Alien很生气，后果很严重 -smallwhale(喝不了咖啡); 2006-1-12 (#2714747@0)
Rockets that are capable of shipping hundreds of tonnes of nuclear waste into outer space *is* expensive. Also it is hard to make sure that those stuffs do not hit back on earth. -colourwolf(色狼); 2006-1-12 (#2714847@0)

"从油砂中提油，以现有的技术，是‘用金子提砂子’"- 言过其实。SAGD has been widely used in produce bitumen from oil sands. ask suncor; shall; CNRL; syncrude... -tap-tap(开闸灌水); 2006-1-12 (#2714684@0)

‘用金子提砂子’是引用NRC的一位官员的话。The oil production cost with SAGD is about 2-3 times of oil drilingbut the life-cycle cost is much higher if to include the devastating impact on landscape, river, forest and vegetation, waste water treatment, large consumption of water and natural gas, and CO2 emmission. These are the prices that later generation will have to pay. If you visit Sudbury, you will understand what the nickel city means to the local people. -dreamplace(小胖); 2006-1-12 {356} (#2714862@0)

never been to sudbury, but i'm sure w/o those mines and melters it'd be a ghost city. i did visit ft. mcmurray before though.it's the oil production that creats this city - actually; town. and you will agree with me that SAGD is causing the least damage to environment; if you see how SAGD is working. -tap-tap(开闸灌水); 2006-1-12 {177} (#2715379@0)

This another side of this story. I have strong background in environmental science, so I know1) Production of greenhouse gases
2) Forest clearance
3) Water pollution

Now let me tell you the Sudbury story. Years mining activity has left the local soil extremely acidic. The government had to spread lime to neutralize the soil in order to plant anything. -colourwolf(色狼); 2006-1-12 {265} (#2715563@0)

okay now apparently the topic is developement vs social costs. don;t disagree with envriomentists on whatever they are argruing. while what;s the solution, if any? wind power, solar engery, biomass and so-n-so; -tap-tap(开闸灌水); 2006-1-12 {530} (#2715671@0)

我的意思是现在人类对化石燃料的依赖是无法替代的，但是并不是不可以减少依赖，现在的体制浪费严重比如使用太阳能对水预热，帮助冬季采暖，这些在技术上都是可行的，只需要稍微投入一点研究力量就能做到 -colourwolf(色狼); 2006-1-12 {96} (#2715794@0)
Environmental cost is part of the life-cycle cost. Do you not agree?My point is, if only based on production cost, 'extracting bitumen from oil sands is not prohibitively expensive today'; but it is a lot more expensive if life cycle cost is included.
2nd point, we don' t have to wait to start alternatives until oil is done. Renewables have their niche markets, even today.

“The Stone Age did not end for lack of stone, and the Oil Age will end long before the world runs out of oil.” -A Saudi oil minister -dreamplace(小胖); 2006-1-12 {450} (#2715796@0)

don't disagree with you. i have my reservation on fule cell wind power and the like nonetheless. don't believe they are the solution. -tap-tap(开闸灌水); 2006-1-13 (#2716058@0)

on todays' Globe. fun to read -patpat(侃侃伐坛); 2006-1-14 {2860} (#2718277@0)

油砂商业化开采已经有多年了. -calgarycat(卡城大猫); 2006-1-13 (#2717027@0)

"Science" in Nov 2005 says, only 5-10% product from sandy oil within future 50 years. NOT as serious as some politists or medias -tracyuwo(似水流年); 2006-1-12 (#2714861@0)

In today's world, 5% oil supply is a big number. Also you should look at the trend. Oil sand is the only means of oil production that is not in decline. -colourwolf(色狼); 2006-1-12 (#2714874@0)

Topic

More Topics